Jump to content

Talk:VFA-103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NAS Oceana

[edit]

Ideally we'd link to a page on NAS Oceana, or at least say where it roughly is. Frankly I've been through their website [1] and I've still no idea where it is. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lineage

[edit]

There might be some value in discussing formal lineage issues; as a technical matter, VFA-103 does not share a common unit lineage with VF-84 or VF-17, though it adopted the "Jolly Rogers" traditions and insignia upon the disestablishment of VF-84. See [2] for the Naval Historical Center's view. On the other hand, this technicality may matter less if we're more concerned with tracking the history of the Jolly Rogers on USN aircraft rather than the formal unit history. -- Robin Lee.

There is an article on the Jolly Roger which has this lineage. See below for my suggestion on splitting this page into three parts, one for each unit. Kablammo 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

[edit]

VF-17 was actually disestablished April 10, 1944, not October, as originally stated. After its disestablishment the VF17 veterans formed the nucleii of newly established squadrons. VF-84, established in 1944, viewed itself as the successor to VF-17, due to overlap in command, personnel, aircraft, and traditions. It contained not only VF17 ace and XO Roger Hedrick as its CO, but also several other VF17 veterans. It also went aboard the USS Bunker Hill, VF-17's first home. And when VF-84 was reformed in the 1950s, it was natural for it to assume the "Jolly Rogers" name. In combat both VF-17 and VF-84 used the Corsair exclusively.

A new VF-17 was formed in 1944. It kept the Jolly Rogers name and insignia. It had different personnel than the first "edition" of VF-17. Its flew the Hellcat, off the Hornet (CV-12), and had a very successful tour of duty in the final drive on the Iwo Jima and the Home Islands in 1945.

I have not rewritten the article yet as I propose to make two entirely new articles; one on VF-17 and one on VF-84. The present VFA-103 article will then deal solely with VF103, with links to the other two squadron's articles.

The VF84 article would also deal with the 1944-45 squadron. It would incorporate the present article's contents on the postwar squadron. I will contribute the World War II sections.

There needs to be an edit and more information on the first postwar decade as right now it seems jumbled and confused. Kablammo 17:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should all be on one page, If you want making sections for the previous units with the name. PPGMD 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the histories and see how they look. The first VF-17 had two very intense tours of duty in late 1943 and early 1944, and the second edition of the squadron was carrier-based in the final drive on Japan in 1945. The article on VF-17 therefore could be as long as the present part devoted to VFA-103. VF-84 had a WWII history similar to that of the second VF-17. So I think length is a concern. Kablammo 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, VF-84 was pulled from the Pacific after a Kamakaze struck VF-84's ready room abaord USS Bunker Hill, killing several original members of VF-17.

Length isn't that big of a deal anymore as long as the sections are split up, and the entire article is on topic IMO. PPGMD 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: What's the topic? This page is for VFA-103. VFA-103 is now the Jolly Rogers, but VFA-103 definitely is not VF-17 nor is it VF-84. That is made clear by the Navy's own treatment of these squadrons as well as the view of historians. VF-17 and the first VF-84 had stellar records in World War II and they deserve their own pages. In no way would that detract from VFA-103, but subsuming VF-17 and the first VF-84 under an article entitled VFA-103 could be seen as not giving the earlier squadrons the recognition they deserve. There are veterans of both iterations of VF-17 and of the 1944-45 VF-84 alive today, and their squadrons should be recognized under their own unit numbers. Kablammo 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this page should be about the VFA-103, and VF-17 and VF-84 should have their own articles - cross-linking to indicate the passing of the "Jolly Rogers" designation. Especially since the Jolly Rogers patch image is for the VF-84! -- Medains 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the "Jolly Rogers" name history, this page is fine. If you are talking about VF-103/VFA-103, Then VF-17 pt.1, VF-17/5B/61, and VF-84 needs thier own pages along with a page explaining the passing of the bones and trditions of the Jolly Rogers.

History

[edit]

Didn't VF-84 fly the S model of the Phantom as well?...Only B,J, and N are listed in the history paragraph. Sregor Ylloj (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on VFA-103. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VFA-103&oldid=1205923845"